471–480 of 582 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the film itself implies that the idiocracy is due to stupid people breeding more, a classic tenet of Nazism and eugenics alike
Is Darwin natural selection eugenic? Was the rise of humans from chimps an eugenic like event?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the film itself implies that the idiocracy is due to stupid people breeding more, a classic tenet of Nazism and eugenics alike
It's true though, isn't it? The response is what typifies Nazi and similar positions. It is curious that there's no reported disgenic effect though - that seems counter to evolutionary theory? Perhaps it's only limiting the rate of growth of IQ/intelligence. There's a classic sci-fi story in which we rely on computers, the population gets dumber to the point noone knows how to make/fix the computers. I think in that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is Darwin natural selection eugenic? Was the rise of humans from chimps an eugenic like event?
No, because that’s natural selection, not artificial selection by an authoritarian government. Hope this helps!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It breaks my heart when I hear people outraged about Onion stories, not because that they fall for them, but because they know they have a hard time telling truth from fiction.
I think people don't like Onion stories because they're not funny, they're just pretentious and political. For instance, their famous 'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens article they post all over their page whenever there is some high profile gun related crime. It's all over their page and no doubt they get a bump in traffic from smug people who feel it's clever. It's just so exha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's ironic seeing that nazis (or the far right in general) usually need stupid people to vote for them so they get into a position where they can undermine a democratic system...
All kinds of people voted for the Nazi party, including very intelligent and respectable professors, and there was no special split in intelligence between either side voters (or measure of that). What's ironic is using nazi-like thinking (the idiot masses who vote far right vs the enlightened people who vote left), instead of treating it as a complex political matter, and accepting that perfectly intelligent people…
Love it. Although I'm not sure which is the darkest timeline given https://www.howclosetoblackmirror.com/
Isn't it depressing that San Junipero, arguably the only happy episode, has the lowest progress score?
Black Mirror likes to show us the most-important thing as a kind of punctuation or statement of message even when it's not what the episode has encouraged us to believe is the most important thing (see also: the focus of the camera in the very first episode during A Certain Event—we've been primed for a grand, disgusting spectacle, and the camera chooses to show us none of that, and instead shows us something much more disgusting: the faces of people watching it, which is the actual show, and the point of the "artist" in the episode).
San Junipero ends by showing us the entirety of what is actually happening, for-real, which is an automated computer-maintenance system keeping itself running. It's highlighting the unreality of the virtual world, I think suggesting that even the apparent experiences we've been watching aren't happening in any real sense.
What's really happening? 100% of what's really happening? As you see. A computer system maintaining itself, to keep electricity flowing through its various circuits. Doing what? Doesn't matter, could be endlessly calculating digits of pi, that'd be just as much a "real" experience as what you've been so invested in. This is all that's really going on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be curious to know the average IQ of, say, climate deniers. I suspect it's still a perfect 100. I don't think it's about general intelligence. In some ways just the opposite: very smart people have a talent for convincing themselves that they are right. Unfortunately I fear it's more like EQ than IQ. The driver is more about the people. They do not like the kind of people who are trying to prevent climate change,…
Yes, it's hard for some to believe, but there are people in my family who are otherwise very intelligent but will not change their opinions on some things. Like climate change.
I'll admit, I'm a simple man and I don't know the science behind all of this. But as a citizen, it does feel confusing how one day you're being told that we're all going to die unless we change something, and then suddenly even though nothing changed, it seems to be fine after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you don't have to be a scientist to directly engage with the literature. from mathematical proofs to directly observed phenomena to statistical certainties - it's all out there for you to engage with and feel secure in your findings just by having an internet connection. there's a qualitative difference in that evidence from the "sides" and therefore there is a qualitative and practical difference in the "more intell…
That’s a pretty weak argument. What percentage of people actually have the qualifications to understand and verify a research paper? And how much can you even trust the raw data? At the end of the day, it’s just a matter of faith—whether you choose to believe the guy in the church or the guy at the university.
Current research papers are far more advanced, but they're about the details of climate change. The basic facts of it were established two centuries ago.
We know that we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere. We know that CO2 absorbs heat. That's not a matter of believing an expert. At this point, anybody still denying it is deliberately choosing what somebody else tells them.
The economic effects of that are harder to model, but denialism is still stuck on whether the effect is real. There is no way to include them in any coherent discussion of what to do about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel Idiocracy is irresistible bait for 'not like the other girls'-types. Everytime this movie comes up, droves of people mention how they get it, while others don't. It's becoming a trope in itself.
Agreed. It’s cited so often on Reddit by people who want to establish their superiority over the masses. “It’s a documentary!!” is a meme unto itself. It’s also got a kind of weird eugenics-y vibe to it (like establishing “stupid people breeding makes stupid people” as incontrovertible fact) when you step back and examine it as a movie that’s making Serious Statements. But it isn’t. It’s not a bad movie. But it’s a c…
I hadn't seen it since it came out, but had a that kind of general movie recollection that it was as funny as it was prescient. Watched it again with my wife who had not seen it before: it's not funny. Maybe I'm getting too old.
(I do still laugh at the "Ow! My balls!")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a pretty weak argument. What percentage of people actually have the qualifications to understand and verify a research paper? And how much can you even trust the raw data? At the end of the day, it’s just a matter of faith—whether you choose to believe the guy in the church or the guy at the university.
You don't need any advanced science to understand climate change. The basic chemistry and physics of it are readily accessible at a high school level. Current research papers are far more advanced, but they're about the details of climate change. The basic facts of it were established two centuries ago. We know that we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere. We know that CO2 absorbs heat. That's not a matter of believin…